BajaNomad - Yet Another Satisfied Customer

Yet Another Satisfied Customer

arrowhead - 1-2-2010 at 11:13 PM

Quote:

http://rosaritorealestatefacts.com/openletter.htm

BUYERS / SELLERS BEWARE

BUY / SELL PROPERTY IN ROSARITO BEACH BAJA MEXICO

WITH EXTREAM CAUTION – BEWARE!

October 5, 2009

To whom it may concern,

This is to advise all interested parties that a comprehensive draft of this letter will be released to all media centers in California -including San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, and beyond including Nevada, Arizona should this situation not be resolved immediately.

I have recently (Since August 2008) attempted to sell my condominium unit at La Jolla de Rosarito that I purchased through Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V – Developer of Oceana Condominiums, Oceana Casa del Mar, La Jolla de Rosarito, Oceana Plaza and possibly other developments around Rosarito Beach and Baja Mexico.

The property has been paid off in full, but apparently has a lien against it which the developer Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V took out a secondary loan against the property without my knowledge or consent.

Furthermore I and the buyer have a purchase/sell agreement being handled through escrow in Baja Mexico and we have been waiting for over 220 days for the lien to be released in order to move forward with the closure of the sale. Due to this excessive delay I have come to the conclusion that what we in the US expect from escrow, is not what you get in Mexico from escrow it’s simply a name used in Mexico to give US investors false security that their dealings will be handled in an honest and safe manner.

Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V represented by C.P. Julio Cesar Mendivil A. received the final payment balance owed on the property $57, 337.00 USD. On September 4th, 2008 as a pre condition they set prior to the lien being paid off by them, which they have not turned over to the bank holding title and security mortgage on the property as of this date.

I met personally with C.P. Julio Cesar Mendivil A. on October 22, 2008 to discus why things were taking so long and he blatantly told me that he had spent the money that was turned over to him on other commitments. I immediately contacted the bank holding the title directly to explain the situation and spoke to the branch manager and the person directly in charge of the Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V account who expressed to me that they could do nothing for me since their client is Desarolladora de las Californias and that I must deal with them directly or by legal means as he stated I had all the necessary elements to file a lawsuit.

I highly urge all interested parties to help resolve this situation immediately in order to avoid yet another plague of bad press directed towards Rosarito Beach Baja California, Mexico. In order for potential investors in Mexico to have confidence in the system this type of unprofessional action must stop.

Today is October 5, 2009 and yet absolutely no progress!

Below I have included the contact information for the legal representative of the developer:

C.P. Julio Cesar Mendivil Arguelles

Desarrolladora de Las Californias, S.A. de C.V.

Nextel 152*133193*12

Tel. 100-61-40 al 43

jmendivil@decasamx.com.mx

http://decasamx.homestead.com

http://lajolladelmar.homestead.com/Contactus.html

If I have not finalized this transaction in a professional and satisfactory manner by February 28, 2009 – I will continue to send press releases to all media outlets indefinitely.

Feel free to forward this email to any and all parties that may be interested, affected or may be of assistance in resolving this issue.

Current Owner

Owner - La Jolla de Rosarito

Hey Mexicorny! I hear that guy Tommy Goodman is the Secretary of the La Jolla de Rosarito HOA. Maybe you should pass this on to him so he can publish it on the HOA's website that he maintains. I'm sure he would not shirk his fiduciary responsibility by failing to notify the homeowners that their condos are not free and clear even after they paid off the developer in full. Maybe working on that little "problem" will help him stop fixating on some old burned-out surfer.

p.s. Please stop sending me U2U's. I'm just not your type.

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 12:02 AM

Your not my type whats that supposed to mean Einstein?

Yeah your right Nancy I have to say I dont like your type either. You sound just like a bottom feeder lawyer in your posts.
Where did you receive your law degree from?
you're a liar and you should be deported back to the US.

No soy contra Los Nomads tampoco Y Largate a la Berga!

[Edited on 1-3-2010 by Mexicorn]

arrowhead - 1-3-2010 at 01:52 AM

Listen up Mexicorny, perhaps things still are not clear to you. Maybe I can help clarify your situation in Rosarito:

1) On a good day, your condo is worth only a fraction of what you paid for it.
2) Your HOA has only about $20,000 in reserves and those two big, tall twin towers are going to start needing major investments to keep them from dissolving back into the beach sand.
3) Many homeowners are not paying their HOA dues. Sooner or later you will talk to a Mexican lawyer who actually knows something and he is going to tell you that the HOA cannot enforce collection of the delinquent HOA dues under Mexican law and cannot even foreclose on the unit.
4) The only way to keep the buildings habitable is for those who still pay the HOA to keep paying more and more to make up the difference.
5) Even if you could find a buyer for your unit, you cannot sell it. This is because your "wonderful" developer took all the sales proceeds and put it in his pocket or used it elsewhere and did not pay off the underlying construction loan. Now, you can sue him in a Mexican court, but nothing on this planet can make him payoff a loan with money he does not have.

That sinking feeling you are getting in your stomach right about now comes from the slow realization that your entire investment in Mexico is gone, and it is never coming back. Not one peso. You have been skinned. I suggest that instead of spending your hours here trying figure out who your enemies are, you could be much more productive by starting work on your little problem. I'm fairly certain that amped-out old surfer lady is not responsible for your mess.

Sharksbaja - 1-3-2010 at 03:31 AM

Ouch! Hey, it's a learning curve. It's just a matter of how sharp that next curve is. The way I see it is you gots three choices:

1) Yield to Mexican developers

2) Yield to the Eijido

3) Yield to the hurricanes

They're all equally scary.

WHAZZUPWIDAT? WHAZZUPWIDAT? :lol:

monoloco - 1-3-2010 at 07:14 AM

Just get a Mexican attorney he'll get it all sorted out. In about 20 years.

Pescador - 1-3-2010 at 08:03 AM

Yep, another flaming example of why "Mexico is just like the United States, only cheaper."

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead
Listen up Mexicorny, perhaps things still are not clear to you. Maybe I can help clarify your situation in Rosarito:

1) On a good day, your condo is worth only a fraction of what you paid for it.
2) Your HOA has only about $20,000 in reserves and those two big, tall twin towers are going to start needing major investments to keep them from dissolving back into the beach sand.
3) Many homeowners are not paying their HOA dues. Sooner or later you will talk to a Mexican lawyer who actually knows something and he is going to tell you that the HOA cannot enforce collection of the delinquent HOA dues under Mexican law and cannot even foreclose on the unit.
4) The only way to keep the buildings habitable is for those who still pay the HOA to keep paying more and more to make up the difference.
5) Even if you could find a buyer for your unit, you cannot sell it. This is because your "wonderful" developer took all the sales proceeds and put it in his pocket or used it elsewhere and did not pay off the underlying construction loan. Now, you can sue him in a Mexican court, but nothing on this planet can make him payoff a loan with money he does not have.

That sinking feeling you are getting in your stomach right about now comes from the slow realization that your entire investment in Mexico is gone, and it is never coming back. Not one peso. You have been skinned. I suggest that instead of spending your hours here trying figure out who your enemies are, you could be much more productive by starting work on your little problem. I'm fairly certain that amped-out old surfer lady is not responsible for your mess.

Thanks for all that great information but.
1.) I dont own a condo I live in Baja del mar.
2.) You stole someones identity( Tom Goodman of Rosarito beach).
3.) Your days are numbered on this board.
4.) Start thinking of a new screen name might I suggest "Brown Twinkey Swimmer" or how about "Cat Lady" or even "Crazy old lawyer broad."
See you at Plan-B

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 09:38 AM

Well, who ever it is that put this up, does all a big "favor" in citing a real estate transaction which went south, big time..

It this example, a number of salient points are raised which should be included into one's memory banks.. as I can't think of anyone that would like to see themselves in this situation.. well, maybe I should qualify that last thing.. "to most people", as there are always exceptions to the rule..

If possible, would one know the "law" the section which covers the aspects of foreclosure on a specific site and/or property... enquiring minds want to know

[Edited on 1-3-2010 by wessongroup]

As I'm sure has been said...

Mexray - 1-3-2010 at 10:26 AM

...a gazillion times before...

NEVER invest in Mexico more that you are willing to walk away from...at some point in time!

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 10:31 AM

CDDG need I say more.

fishbuck - 1-3-2010 at 10:37 AM

Doesn't the escrow account work where each party puts in their part and it's exchanged in the escrow?
How did the guy get the money without turning over the title?

[Edited on 1-3-2010 by fishbuck]

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
Doesn't the escrow account work where each party puts in their part and it's exchanged in the escrow?
How did the guy get the money without turning over the title?

[Edited on 1-3-2010 by fishbuck]

"Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V represented by C.P. Julio Cesar Mendivil A. received the final payment balance owed on the property $57, 337.00 USD. On September 4th, 2008 as a pre condition they set prior to the lien being paid off by them, which they have not turned over to the bank holding title and security mortgage on the property as of this date."

This would appear to be the sticking point, payment in full, prior to removing the lien, which was a second trust deed or an encumberance of some type which puts all of the buyers monies into the the "pocket and/or bank account" of the individual and/or legal entity which received the "payment in full".. on "On September 4th, 2008".

An avenue of recourse may exist if, the requirement for "payment in full" was in writing and the language used allows for redress though existing Real Estate Law, in Mexico and/or the State of Baja.

If one can determine the first part, then one can then evaluate the potential cost and possability of recovering of funds.

I again, would ask if anyone knows the "sections" of Real Estate Law in Mexico.. as it would seem necessary to have "laws on the books" since their is: International Trade Aggrements, Treaties, and many business from many Nations are currently doing large scale business in Mexico.

Hope this helps, sorry for the misfortune of those who have gotten into this terrible situation..

Again, this board provides a wealth of insight into issues, of which I'm just becoming aware of... thanks to all

capt. mike - 1-3-2010 at 11:12 AM

right on Ray....
been saying that for years.
that's why i like trailers and palapas....no muss, no fuss, enjoy or move on.
renting rules.

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
right on Ray....
been saying that for years.
that's why i like trailers and palapas....no muss, no fuss, enjoy or move on.
renting rules.

married??

k-rico - 1-3-2010 at 12:06 PM

What does this mean? It's from the original post.

"Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V represented by C.P. Julio Cesar Mendivil A. received the final payment balance owed on the property $57,337.00 USD. On September 4th, 2008 as a pre condition they set prior to the lien being paid off by them, which they have not turned over to the bank holding title and security mortgage on the property as of this date."

Is that second sentence really a sentence.

If it means that the developer demanded full payment prior to the lien being paid off and the buyer agreed to that, then that's where things went down the toilet. Wouldn't witholding final payment until the lienholder is out of the picture be a better way to go?

Also in the original post:

"Due to this excessive delay I have come to the conclusion that what we in the US expect from escrow, is not what you get in Mexico from escrow it’s simply a name used in Mexico to give US investors false security that their dealings will be handled in an honest and safe manner."

He concluded correctly and should have known that before he bought. It's pretty common knowledge that the escrow profession does not exist in Mexico.

I wonder if a gringo sales agent sold him the condo.

Get a lawyer before you need one!

well Wesson...... you know the old adage..

capt. mike - 1-3-2010 at 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup

Quote:

Originally posted by capt. mike
right on Ray....
been saying that for years.
that's why i like trailers and palapas....no muss, no fuss, enjoy or move on.
renting rules.

married??

if it flies....floats or F$%^s......rent - don't "buy".

fortunately i do not own a boat - yet.
regards the others.....it's both good and bad at times... :light:

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 12:39 PM

Who ever sold it was doing what others have asked of us in a couple "aborted" real estate transaction we have "brushed by" in the past few months down here "kicking dirt"...

Really like this one, " You don't understand.. this is the way we do this down here".. or how about "yes make the check out to me, and I will insure that everything will be taken care of"... and let's not forget.."Do I own the property, of course.. but I can't seem to find the copies of the Fido, tax records, or any documents.. You mean you can't support your claim of ownership with documentation?? Well, if you put it that way, Yes...... oh, and please make the check out to....

You ever hear this one, "if you don't ask..... "

Been very informative dealing with "relators??" here in Baja.. thanks for all the heads up and by the way why should they get 6% on a transaction, they do not do the same amount of work, nor are they "civilly or criminally liable it would appear at this time.. still looking though some items now:

- The Mexican Constitution and international treaties
- The Foreign Investment Law and its regulations
- The Civil Code
- The General Law of National Properties
- Federal Zone Regulations
- Condominium Law
- Tax Laws: income tax law, acquisition tax law
- The General Law of Negotiable Instrument
- Commercial Code
- Public Registry
- Notary Law and Federal Law of Public Brokerage
- Agrarian Law
- Corporation Law...

arrowhead - 1-3-2010 at 01:21 PM

Well, before you start looking up the law of the land down there, there's a few facts you need to know. First of all, Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V, is owned by the Torres Chabert family. Good old Mayor Hugo Torres and family for those who don't know Rosarito. A few years ago there was a title dispute on some of those gringo ghetto projects of Hugo's. In fact, our old buddy Rafael "Mano Negro" Muñoz was one of the claim jumpers trying to prove he owned the land. (That guy sures gets around, doesn't he?)

Well, anyway, to make a long story short, Mexicorn's best friend, Nancy Conroy, published the news of the land dispute in the Gringo Gazette. Hugo went crazy because he had not and did not want to disclose the cloud on title to the gringos buying his condos. So Hugo started a criminal action against Nancy to shut her up, threatening her with two years in jail. All she did was publish the fact that a land dispute existed, a verifiable fact.

So, any gringo who thinks he is going to go into a Mexican court and prevail against Mr. Rosarito needs to rethink his life.

Woooosh - 1-3-2010 at 01:23 PM

Those condos have been selling cheap as "foreclosures" for several years on CraigsList.

Rosarito Beach has Tourist Police with no tourists, and Lifeguard Towers without trained lifeguards. Title insurance is a farce and there are no completion bond requirements. Escrow? They use the same terms to bring you to the table- but then don't back them with the associated, correct actions.

Anyone who thinks they have a better legal team than Trump did and can navigate this real estate snake pit as a foreigner with a better result than his investors got... is a very slow learner.

There is no shame in Mexico and even Mayor Torres has had "problems" with real estate transactions. I don't think they care about threats- their legal system values friends and longtime relationships over loosely written property laws. And with real estate moving slower ands slower- the snakes get more brave and the snake-charmers aren't discouraging them from continuing.

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead
Well, before you start looking up the law of the land down there, there's a few facts you need to know. First of all, Desarolladora de las Californias S.A de C.V, is owned by the Torres Chabert family. Good old Mayor Hugo Torres and family for those who don't know Rosarito. A few years ago there was a title dispute on some of those gringo ghetto projects of Hugo's. In fact, our old buddy Rafael "Mano Negro" Muñoz was one of the claim jumpers trying to prove he owned the land. (That guy sures gets around, doesn't he?)

Well, anyway, to make a long story short, Mexicorn's best friend, Nancy Conroy, published the news of the land dispute in the Gringo Gazette. Hugo went crazy because he had not and did not want to disclose the cloud on title to the gringos buying his condos. So Hugo started a criminal action against Nancy to shut her up, threatening her with two years in jail. All she did was publish the fact that a land dispute existed, a verifiable fact.

So, any gringo who thinks he is going to go into a Mexican court and prevail against Mr. Rosarito needs to rethink his life.

Not thinking in absolute terms here.. politics knows no boundaries.. an example for me up north, the El Toro Airport.. it's been voted on three or four times.. and each time.. it gets put into limbo by the "courts" ... we (the voters) don't know what we want!!!
And to date, it is my understanding that the runways have NOT been removed!!

Also about trestles.. do all know that the "road" all fought so hard against for years... was an amendment to the last pork pile that was passed a few months back.. which allows for the road not to be built, only if the State of California declines to accept the funding from the Fed's.. gee, wonder how that happened..

These are "snakes" within the United States ...... and you still have to know the law.. as sometimes you might win... so I just carry over learned experience to Baja and expect even worse behavior

As for not knowing the law in the Country which you may be living in and "owning property" I for one, would like to know as much as I can.. sure I might not win them all, but will have a better chance stopping from getting too court and just might have a better chance if it fit's into some legal category which may give relieve, think it's better than knowing zip...

I have been "listening" and "reading" about everything I can here and else where to understand the legal process first, then adapt to regional and local variations, plus learning about "projects" like the one which has been illustrated so well by you folks here.. from the locals and others that live here!!.. no guarantee, but to be armed and forewarned is going to be my best bet down here in a Real Estate transactions.. as I certainly don't have 30-40 staff attorneys like Mr Trump has/had...

Bring in the "political" aspect is very appreciated and is well timed to this discussion, as we all know this is a pretty big factor in the whole process of development.. the development of a tax base, among other things..

Very good topic, with very good input from all.. thanks

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Well, anyway, to make a long story short, Mexicorn's best friend, Nancy Conroy, published the news of the land dispute in the Gringo Gazette. Hugo went crazy because he had not and did not want to disclose the cloud on title to the gringos buying his condos. So Hugo started a criminal action against Nancy to shut her up

Is that right suthsayer Areohead, So what your saying is this isn't your first rodeo?

:lol:

Nancy!!

Oh what happened to her Crack report Lois Lane? I mean Vivian Dunbar AKA Vivian Stratton? :?:

[Edited on 1-3-2010 by Mexicorn]

Bajahowodd - 1-3-2010 at 02:22 PM

Truth is that even with a bucket full of good intentions, it is ill-advised, as a foreigner, to crusade against the status quo in Mexico. Nancy was not the first, nor sadly, will not be the last to be "put in their place" by the local powers(politicians/ businessmen/police).

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Truth is that even with a bucket full of good intentions, it is ill-advised, as a foreigner, to crusade against the status quo in Mexico. Nancy was not the first, nor sadly, will not be the last to be "put in their place" by the local powers(politicians/ businessmen/police).

Ditto's

surebought - 1-3-2010 at 04:06 PM

It could be much much worse. I know of people who have paid six figures and nothing ever got built. I really hate the Real Estate Business here. Remember, a hundred things can go wrong with a Real Estate deal in Mexico. Your right, escrows fundamentally can't really be the same here as they are in the States. So many times when it's time to sell, the challenge is to get the next guy to accept the same deal as you did.

Stupid, arrogant American - not the only one posting on this board

The Gull - 1-3-2010 at 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead
I hear that guy Tommy Goodman is the Secretary of the La Jolla de Rosarito HOA. Maybe you should pass this on to him so he can publish it on the HOA's website that he maintains. I'm sure he would not shirk his fiduciary responsibility by failing to notify the homeowners that their condos are not free and clear even after they paid off the developer in full.

The wise thoughts of an ignorant, arrogant American are displayed above. Here's how:

1) Tries to apply US Corporation standards of "fiduciary responsibility" of the secretary of an unincorporated entity.

2) Doesn't understand that the rules governing Fideocomiso groups (HOA) have little in common under law with the California standards for HOA.

3) Fails to acknowledge that the obligations under law for this type of group falls to the Condominio Administrator who should be a Mexican National.

4) Expresses the normal American stupidity and arrogance regarding the responsibility and authority of the members of the Vigilence Committee.

All in all Nancy, is it any wonder why when you came to Baja to "straighten everyone out" you were given the bum's rush and sent packing. You and other Americans will never learn to keep your noses out of the business of the Mexican society. They are a sovereign nation and will conduct their affairs without your stupid, arrogant nose stuck where it doesn't belong. They don't answer to American standards, never will.

It looks like it is too late for you to learn anything, so you will have the hard road of unsuccess ahead of you. Your "I am an American and I know it all, I even know what is good for other people" attitude doesn't work here or most anywhere.

Why don't you take your fervor to campaign into the US where you can be "Queen for a Day" doing your best to stop illegal immigration and illegal drug use? Until then, don't get surprised when you get taken out, this time, maybe permanently.

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull

Quote:

Nancy I understand that the SDMM may be looking for a new leader. You interested?
With all the USC law skills you might want to take on the whole Mexicans taking good american jobs thing.
When are you comming up for sentencing anyway? You will fit right in with the ladies at the State prison in Ensenada with that butch little haircut you love to sport. Let us know so we can take up a collection to put some money on your books. PS I hear the shrimp or camaron top ramen is the best. hee hee

arrowhead - 1-3-2010 at 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
The wise thoughts of an ignorant, arrogant American are displayed above. Here's how:

1) Tries to apply US Corporation standards of "fiduciary responsibility" of the secretary of an unincorporated entity.

2) Doesn't understand that the rules...yada, yada, yada

Gully, you are without a doubt the most dangerous person who posts here. You have absolutely no knowledge about what you speak, but act like you are the leading authority in the area. I sure hope none of the Nomads here actually believe anything you say. Let us run through a little example of just how little you know.

Say a person, let's call him "Tom" for example, operates an internet web site for the benefit of owners of a property in Mexico. Let's say this website is located on a server in Burlington, MA. "Tom" was elected to his position by a vote of the property owners, including a vote from property owner "A". Let's say "Tom" is a citizen of the US, but resides in Mexico. This website, which Tom created and maintains, advises property owner "A", who happens to be a US citizen and resides in California, that "A" needs to send in his HOA dues.

Now, "Tom" is aware that there is a material deficiency with the property, but fails to tell "A". Had "A" known of this material deficiency, being a reasonable person, "A" probably would not have sent in the HOA dues until the deficiency was corrected. Years later, "A" goes to sell his property and only then finds out that he does not have marketable title because the developer never paid-off the underlying property liens.

"A" decides to sue "Tom" for fraud and breach of fiduciary responsibility. What court is he entitled to sue in?

Let me answer this for you, since I already know you have absolutely no clue. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "A" can sue "Tom" in Federal District Court in California, which would be the 9th District. Federal law allows a citizen of one state to sue a citizen of another state, or of a foreign county, in Federal District Court. The answer would be the same if "Tom" were a citizen of Mexico. "A" may also name the HOA in the lawsuit as an additional defendant, but as it only has a few dollars in assets, wouldn't expect too much from it. When "Tom" gets served with the lawsuit, he will probably go to the president of the HOA and ask if the HOA's insurance policy, written by a Mexican insurance company, no doubt, has "Errors and Omissions" insurance to cover him.

After the guys at the Mexican insurance company stop laughing at that question, I'm sure they will wish "Tom" a hearty "buena suerte" with his lawsuit. So you see, professor Gull, "A" doesn't have to worry about what Mexican law says, or where the HOA is, or where the property is, or any of the other things you mentioned. This is because he is in US District Court where US law is the law of the land.

Mexicorn - 1-3-2010 at 06:36 PM

Nancy your attempts at one upmanship against the gull are a joke.
Stick to your little blog where no one gets to say anything that you dont approve of and go away.
Before I sick Sir Lawrence Trimble esq. on you.

Woooosh - 1-3-2010 at 07:41 PM

Aren't the Trump investors taking the Mexcan developer who ran with the $26 Million USD to court in LA? Same type thing?

Nancy and the law

The Gull - 1-3-2010 at 07:45 PM

Arrowhead, AKA Nancy, you sound so right when you are wrong.

Thank you for responding to my note to you. It further demonstrates your typical ugly American arrogance and ignorance of Mexican law or any law.

Damages described in your fantasy case, if any, are in Mexico. The 9th will throw out your "A" case in a second. As they say, "bring it on". Your linkage with a server in the US is truly a retarded case of bad lawyering, by someone who could not make the grade and pass the Bar. Good thing there are standards in the area of law in the US to keep retards like you from conducting anything which would end up getting unsuspecting people in real trouble.

There is no Officers and Directors insurance in Mexico, for a Volunteer Vigilance Committee of a group of homeowners. Why because they are not a corporation or a governing board, no matter how you want to bend and stretch CA HOA law. Once again, a retarded argument made by you actually sounds believeable - but it is of your making and not real.

Try another career - creative writing might be better for you. Children's fantasy books might be closer to your skills as you can tell stories and they will want to believe in dragons and fairies, and such.

Add obsession to your characteristics of arrogance, ignorance and bigotry.

I offered to buy you lunch - why no acceptance, sweetie? :lol:

The Gull - 1-3-2010 at 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
Aren't the Trump investors taking the Mexcan developer who ran with the $26 Million USD to court in LA? Same type thing?

Trump and others promoted their sales on the US side. They make representations in the US and conducted sales operations & solicitations on the US side. By doing so, they picked up some exposure to US law, but it will be tossed out of court after the plaintiff lawyers bleed the stupid people who bought $400K condos next to a dumpsite - they have already demonstrated being dummies, so the lawyers are in a feeding frenzy.

wessongroup - 1-3-2010 at 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
Aren't the Trump investors taking the Mexcan developer who ran with the $26 Million USD to court in LA? Same type thing?

Funny how law works.... sometimes a good thing to "know".. might just get a default judgement.. but, never can tell... you may get "lucky"..

Might depend on if the Judge ever lost money in a "Mexico Real Estate Transaction"

Woooosh - 1-4-2010 at 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
Aren't the Trump investors taking the Mexcan developer who ran with the $26 Million USD to court in LA? Same type thing?

Of course the impossible part, even if they are lucky enough to prevail, is collecting on the judgement.

k-rico - 1-4-2010 at 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by surebought
It could be much much worse. I know of people who have paid six figures and nothing ever got built.

Do you mean folks forked over $100,000 or more based upon a concept drawing and a signature on a piece of paper, or something like that?

Who is REALLY at fault in such cases?

[Edited on 1-4-2010 by k-rico]

The Gull - 1-4-2010 at 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Do you mean folks forked over $100,000 or more based upon a concept drawing and a signature on a piece of paper, or something like that?

Who is REALLY at fault in such cases?

Those people's parents - for breeding and not teaching them better.

Bajajorge - 1-4-2010 at 10:01 AM

:light

on't spend more in Mexico, than what you can afford to walk away from. :barf:

Woooosh - 1-4-2010 at 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull

Quote:

Those people's parents - for breeding and not teaching them better.

More money than brains?

The problem in many cases is likely the lack of a requirement for "completion bonds". Without a completion bond to guarantee funding is in place and that construction will be completed, it is just a real estate pyramid scheme. If you get in early- you may get a finished unit. Even then you may have empty unfinished floors above and below you for many years. If you get in late- your 30% down built the earlier buyers unit and you are out of luck.

DENNIS - 1-4-2010 at 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
The problem in many cases is likely the lack of a requirement for "completion bonds".

It probably happens less these days than in the past but, folks would come down here, fall in love with the place and put complete trust in a landlord or contractor, thinking with their US mindset that their handshake will be protected by law.
"Oh, he won't screw me...he's my amigo. I bring clothes for his grandkids"

Gawd...How many times did I hear that. I knew an old fool here last year who was absent living in the states while he just kept paying a contractor to build a garage. 112 thousand bucks later, he had a leaky garage. What a freakin dope.

bajajazz - 1-4-2010 at 11:54 AM

The venom contained in this thread is astonishing.

Woooosh - 1-4-2010 at 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajajazz
The venom contained in this thread is astonishing.

too many topics touched upon in this thread to know which one though...

Bajahowodd - 1-4-2010 at 01:31 PM

Bad things make good copy. How boring would it be to only post entries by and about folks who have successfully managed to relocate to Baja and are thrilled just being there? :rolleyes:

arrowhead - 1-4-2010 at 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
Damages described in your fantasy case, if any, are in Mexico.

Interesting legal position you have there, Gully. Perhaps you can explain to the BajaNomads why this case was tried in California?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B13854...

I think some of those names look familiar.

elgatoloco - 1-4-2010 at 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
Damages described in your fantasy case, if any, are in Mexico.

Can you summarize in fifty words mas or menos?

Gracias!

Bajahowodd - 1-4-2010 at 03:31 PM

Hmmm. A Summary Judgment finding no triable issues on appeal with the underlying case claiming defamation. Would have hoped you could have found something more substantial. In fact, since this was at the appellate level, this court could only rule on the facts presented in the underlying case. Whether the court of first impression erred in hearing the case is not at issue here. Come back when you find a better example.

arrowhead - 1-4-2010 at 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Hmmm. A Summary Judgment finding no triable issues on appeal with the underlying case claiming defamation. Would have hoped you could have found something more substantial. In fact, since this was at the appellate level, this court could only rule on the facts presented in the underlying case. Whether the court of first impression erred in hearing the case is not at issue here. Come back when you find a better example.

Maybe I can get you on the same page as everybody else and summarize the issues for elgatoloco at the same time. Let us review:

Arrowhead said: A US resident can sue in a US court for damages he incurred in Mexico.

The Gull said: Oh no. The damages are in Mexico, and the US court will toss the case out for lack of jurisdiction.

Arrowhead then posted a case wherein a US resident sued in a US court for damages he incurred in Mexico. The plaintiff lost the case because he was a putz and didn't have a good case. He then appealed, again in a US court, and lost his appeal because he still didn't have a ggod case. Please note that the original trial court did not throw out the case for lack of jurisdiction, neither did the appelate court. When one files a lawsuit, on the very first page of the complaint there is a statement about whey the court you are filing in has jurisdiction. This is a requirement for a valid complaint. Jurisdiction was never an issue, not even for the defendant.

Hey Gull, don't you agree that the plaintiff in this case was a putz and burned through a lot of money on a case he couldn't win?

The Gull - 1-4-2010 at 04:50 PM

Good review, Howard.

It would be better to have seen the facts presented for the actual trial. Regardless, it does appear as the plaintiffs did lose on the merits of their complaint.

Dear A-head,

Getting in a court is not winning in a court - thank you (A-head) for proving my earlier point.

Also, to my earlier point: avid muckraking, ambulance chasing lawyers (and make-believe lawyers) are a foul bunch of frenzy feeders who always get paid regardless of the trial's outcome.

Why don't you respond to my lunch invitation? Too scary?

Why don't you take all your pent-up hate and sanctimonious views and really go after the bad guys? Why not go after the 10,000 drug gang members in the ghettos of SoCal and do an expose on them? Better yet, why don't you do an expose on the charming people of Hollywood who suck down all nature of illegal drugs and then present the false face of decency to the public who pour billions into their slop on the silver screen?

Is it that those two groups could actually fight back, if you tried? In your mind, it is easier to attack another culture - one that you don't understand - because it has had a large "beat down" already?

Hyenas like you have learned to stay at the edge of the pack, waiting to see weakness in the unsuspecting target of your attack.

[Edited on 2-28-2010 by The Gull]

Bajahowodd - 1-4-2010 at 05:30 PM

I stand by my last post. The appellate court was charged to rule on the facts presented in the appeal. They were not asked to comment on jurisdiction. And of course, since the Superior court never makes any mistakes, it could never have been a case of accepting a lawsuit over which they had no actual jurisdiction. All I ask is that Arrowhead show me an adjudicated case in a US court of first impression wherein damages were awarded for anything related to a real estate transaction in Mexico, involving fraud, deceit or failure to perform, which, I believe was the initial point of this thread.

tripledigitken - 1-4-2010 at 05:35 PM

I think the Trump case would be the perfect case to bring to a US Court and dispell/prove the legality of a case in the US over business in Mexico. I haven't heard of that proceeding, anyone else?

arrowhead - 1-4-2010 at 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
Getting in a court is not winning in a court - thank you (A-head) for proving my earlier point.

No, Gully, your original point, which is still up here on this thread for anybody to read, was that the court would throw the case out. That did not happen, the court tried the case and found the plaintiff could not raise a triable issue. You have now changed your point, after the fact, like the pigs changed the sign on the side of the barn

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
Why don't you respond to my lunch invitation? Too scary?

Too far. How about someplace a little closer to home with no 2-hour line at the border? Ever heard of:

Los Gringos Locos
464 Foothill Blvd.
Flintridge, CA

Quote:

Originally posted by The Gull
Why don't you take all your pent-up hate and sanctimonious views and really go after the bad guys? Why not go after the 10,000 drug gang members in the ghettos of SoCal and do an expose on them? Better yet, why don't you do an expose on the charming people of Hollywood who suck down all nature of illegal drugs and then present the false face of decency to the public who pour billions into their slop on the silver screen?

Red herring
A "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.

A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent.

arrowhead - 1-4-2010 at 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
All I ask is that Arrowhead show me an adjudicated case in a US court of first impression wherein damages were awarded for anything related to a real estate transaction in Mexico, involving fraud, deceit or failure to perform, which, I believe was the initial point of this thread.

No it wasn't. Read it again, s l o w l y.

Gull

Bajahowodd - 1-4-2010 at 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Quote:

No it wasn't. Read it again, s l o w l y.

This what a red herring actually looks like.

The Gull - 1-4-2010 at 06:03 PM

Looks red to me.

SDRonni - 1-4-2010 at 06:24 PM

I have to admit this thread made me nervous, as we signed our closing documents and gave the developer the total balance due. This was done in front of the notario. The developer's bank(s) had liens on the property, but we were assured that they would be released. The developer said at the closing that he was going directly to the bank and that he would not see a dime of our money. We were assured by the notario that the bank would be in to sign off on the liens as soon as the developer delivered the funds to them. This was about a month ago. We have not yet received the fide. After reading this thread and it making me almost sick, we called the notario's office today. We were told that the bank(s) DID come in and signed off, all the documents are ready, and that our fide will be delivered w/in a couple of weeks. So, things aren't always bad. We are very happy with our purchase. Not to say there weren't bumps along the way....we purchased in 8/06 and moved in early 12/09. But, as they say, good things come to those who wait, and we ended up with a much better condo and location than we had originally purchased. :tumble:

Woooosh - 1-4-2010 at 07:34 PM

I don't think anyone messes with the Notarios. It's the Mexico equivalent of a "closing"- you are all sitting in front of the Notario and his reputation is on the line. They are very busy and very important.

Glad it all worked out for you. We didn't have any problems with the system and process either... none.

arrowhead - 1-4-2010 at 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
I don't think anyone messes with the Notarios. It's the Mexico equivalent of a "closing"- you are all sitting in front of the Notario and his reputation is on the line. They are very busy and very important.

Glad it all worked out for you. We didn't have any problems with the system and process either... none.

The issue at La Jolla de Rosarito happened long after the closing. People payed off their purchase money mortgages but the developer did not pay off the underlying construction loan. So, no notario was involved at that point.

Woooosh - 1-5-2010 at 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by audiobaja
I think Bajajazz is lamenting the added venom, not just the news, good or bad, itself. There's a lot of angry people here, which is unfortunate.

Seriously. But many of us invested in and retired to a beautiful, peaceful place that we no longer recognize and you have to consider that perspective.

Bajahowodd - 1-5-2010 at 02:43 PM

That's a good point. Especially important to note that many newer Nomads are probably not familiar with some of the major real estate problems and scandals that were encountered by the veterans on the forum. Other than just not buying in Mexico, one must be VERY careful.